Corrupt NTFS filesystem

For those who have been following this tortured saga of the Corrupt
NTFS Filesystem, I think I finally fixed it.

I am running Win2K which was built from an InPlace Upgrade of a
previous installation of Win2K in another computer, which was built
from a previous installation of NT4 in yet another computer. The
original NT4 was first installed in the first part of 1997, so this
current version of Win2K traces back 10 years.

I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do it
because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of which I
do not even recall the customizations. It would take months to
reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have; 2) I
refuse to cave in to the absurd demands of Windows having to be
reinstalled every 6 months just because MS won't spend the money to
fix it. Maybe I will install Vista from scratch, but not XP or Win2K.

So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that a 10
year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer. This one,
the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem, has been plaguing me for over a
year. If I reboot Win2K and run it normally for over 1 day, when I
reboot I find either CHKDSK wants to run or once in a while I get a
BSOD. In every instance but one, I have been able to recover the
corrupted disk by mounting it as D: and running CHKDSK D: /f on it.
All sorts of crap fills the screen - stuff about broken files all over
the place, mostly having to do with security descriptors and empty
space in the MFT.

So I think I may have fixed this fiasco - no more "corrupt NTFS
filesystem". Do you really want to know how I did it?

I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what - no more corrupt
NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote

> For those who have been following this tortured saga
> of the Corrupt NTFS Filesystem, I think I finally fixed it.

> I am running Win2K which was built from an InPlace Upgrade
> of a previous installation of Win2K in another computer, which
> was built from a previous installation of NT4 in yet another
> computer. The original NT4 was first installed in the first part
> of 1997, so this current version of Win2K traces back 10 years.

Urk.

> I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do
> it because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of
> which I do not even recall the customizations. It would take months
> to reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have;

Fine.

> 2) I refuse to cave in to the absurd demands of Windows having to be
> reinstalled every 6 months just because MS won't spend the money to fix it.

That isnt true of either 2K or XP.

> Maybe I will install Vista from scratch, but not XP or Win2K.

XP has a files and settings transfer wizard
which should bring the config stuff across fine.

> So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that
> a 10 year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer.

That is just plain wrong, you do have a choice.

> This one, the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem,
> has been plaguing me for over a year.

And if you had done your backups properly, you could have
stepped back to the copy you had before the problem showed up.

> If I reboot Win2K and run it normally for over 1 day, when I reboot
> I find either CHKDSK wants to run or once in a while I get a BSOD.
> In every instance but one, I have been able to recover the corrupted
> disk by mounting it as D: and running CHKDSK D: /f on it. All sorts of
> crap fills the screen - stuff about broken files all over the place, mostly
> having to do with security descriptors and empty space in the MFT.

> So I think I may have fixed this fiasco - no more "corrupt NTFS
> filesystem". Do you really want to know how I did it?

> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what
> - no more corrupt NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.

You'll likely find that if you convert it back to NTFS now it will be fine too.

Citizen Bob wrote:

> I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do it
> because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of which I
> do not even recall the customizations. It would take months to
> reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have;

instead you're a year down the line.


> So I think I may have fixed this fiasco - no more "corrupt NTFS
> filesystem". Do you really want to know how I did it?
>
> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what - no more corrupt
> NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.

Yes, and it works the other way round too. FAT32 has some strange
issues, so if/when they surface you can convert back to ntfs :)


NT

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 15:52:52 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>XP has a files and settings transfer wizard
>which should bring the config stuff across fine.

If you mean the User Profiles, then I can do that with Win2K.

But will this transfer wizard also copy registry settings for
installed applications? If not then I would have to reinstall nearly
100 apps.

If this transfer wizard is just an IPU, then it will copy the
contaminated parts of the Registry.

>> So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that
>> a 10 year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer.

>That is just plain wrong, you do have a choice.

I am interested. Please expand. My son runs XP Pro so I can have him
research anything you comment on before I try it.

>> This one, the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem,
>> has been plaguing me for over a year.

>And if you had done your backups properly, you could have
>stepped back to the copy you had before the problem showed up.

I did not implement the backup procedure until the problems arose. I
learned my lesson - I will *always* have a backup/restore plan
implemented. When we depended on computers in business we ran a daily
backup. But I am at home and this is not mission critical.

In defense of my laxness, I can tell you that I never had serious
problems with either NT4 or the previous installations of Win2K. It
was this last installation that screwed things up.

You mentioned that I should have had a backup before I installed that
RAID application, which is high on my list of things that likely
caused the problems I had with NTFS corruption. However I persevered
with that app for about 6 months because the factory was working with
me to fix some other problems. It is very unlikely I would have kept a
backup that long, since it would have tied up a hard disk. I suppose I
could have zipped it and laid it off on DVDs but I did not think it
was necessary.

>> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what
>> - no more corrupt NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.

>You'll likely find that if you convert it back to NTFS now it will be fine too.

I thought about that. However I do not see why I should use NTFS when
FAT 32 is working. I can't think of any substantive reason to use NTFS
in my configuration. I have a simple two-computer LAN using a NAT
router and even though I have nearly 100 installed apps, none of them
appears to require NTFS. IOW, I do not believe I need the features of
NTFS in my simple configuration. But because I am curious, I may go
back to NTFS just to see what will happen.

However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per
partition in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag, how
many devices do you see per partition? I asked my son to check his XP
intallation, but he is too busy making money. I have to catch him
sitting in front of his machine.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

>FAT32 has some strange issues,

I have never used FAT32 on NT. What are some of those issues?



--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

>FAT32 has some strange issues

What is the maximum file size with FAT32?


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

Citizen Bob wrote:
> On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>> FAT32 has some strange issues
>
> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?

4GB minus two bytes.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> XP has a files and settings transfer wizard
>> which should bring the config stuff across fine.

> If you mean the User Profiles,

Nope.

> then I can do that with Win2K.

2K doesnt have the files and settings transfer wizard. Thats its name.

> But will this transfer wizard also copy
> registry settings for installed applications?

Yes.

> If not then I would have to reinstall nearly 100 apps.

You do have to reinstall them, but it copys the settings/config data across.

> If this transfer wizard is just an IPU,

It isnt.

> then it will copy the contaminated parts of the Registry.

>>> So I have no choice but to work around the many problems that
>>> a 10 year old installation of Win NT and its spawn have to offer.

>> That is just plain wrong, you do have a choice.

> I am interested. Please expand.

I already did.

> My son runs XP Pro so I can have him research
> anything you comment on before I try it.

Have a look at the files and settings transfer wizard.

>>> This one, the corrupt NTFS filesystem problem,
>>> has been plaguing me for over a year.

>> And if you had done your backups properly, you could have
>> stepped back to the copy you had before the problem showed up.

> I did not implement the backup procedure until the problems arose.
> I learned my lesson - I will *always* have a backup/restore plan
> implemented. When we depended on computers in business we
> ran a daily backup. But I am at home and this is not mission critical.

Doesnt need to be 'mission critical', proper backups would
have avoided farting around for a year trying to fix that problem.

> In defense of my laxness, I can tell you that I never had serious
> problems with either NT4 or the previous installations of Win2K.

Thats as silly as saying that you havent had any
hardware die, so you dont need any backups.

> It was this last installation that screwed things up.

It always is.

> You mentioned that I should have had a backup before I installed
> that RAID application, which is high on my list of things that likely
> caused the problems I had with NTFS corruption. However I persevered
> with that app for about 6 months because the factory was working with
> me to fix some other problems. It is very unlikely I would have kept a
> backup that long, since it would have tied up a hard disk.

You should have done that if it had a problem.

> I suppose I could have zipped it and laid it off
> on DVDs but I did not think it was necessary.

And now you know that it was.

>>> I converted to a FAT32 filesystem, and guess what
>>> - no more corrupt NTFS filesystem. Pretty cool, eh.

>> You'll likely find that if you convert it back to NTFS now it will be fine too.

> I thought about that. However I do not see why I should use NTFS when FAT 32
> is working. can't think of any substantive reason to use NTFS in my configuration.

The main reason is that FAT32 cant handle files over 4GB and once you start
using a digital TV tuner card, you will generate files much bigger than that.

> I have a simple two-computer LAN using a NAT router and even though
> I have nearly 100 installed apps, none of them appears to require NTFS.
> IOW, I do not believe I need the features of NTFS in my simple configuration.

You're wrong.

> But because I am curious, I may go back to NTFS just to see what will happen.

> However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per partition

THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.

> in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag,
> how many devices do you see per partition?

Cant readily try that, I run XP on everything.

With the Disk Defragmenter in XP I have just one entry per partition.

> I asked my son to check his XP intallation, but he is too busy
> making money. I have to catch him sitting in front of his machine.

You should chain him to the machine.

VWWall wrote:
> Citizen Bob wrote:
> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

> >> FAT32 has some strange issues

> > What is the maximum file size with FAT32?

> 4GB minus two bytes.

FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
featured. Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.
50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data. NTFS
has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen. FAT has no password
security system, ntfs does, so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any
user.

Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.


NT

meow2222@care2.com wrote:
> VWWall wrote:
>> Citizen Bob wrote:
>>> On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>>>> FAT32 has some strange issues
>
>>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>
> FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation.

Using WindowsXP, it won't let you create a partition larger than 32G.
Formatted elsewhere, larger FAT32 partitions work fine in WindowsXP.
FAT32 can support a maximum disk size of approximately 8 terabytes

> Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
> a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
> booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.

--
Virg Wall, P.E.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:57:15 GMT, VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net>
wrote:

>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?

>4GB minus two bytes.

Uh oh.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 04:15:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>> However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per partition

>THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.

Then why am I seeing two entries per partition n NT Defrag and Perfect
Disk, but not My computer or Disk Management?

>> in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag,
>> how many devices do you see per partition?
>
>Cant readily try that, I run XP on everything.

I meant the degragger for XP.

>With the Disk Defragmenter in XP I have just one entry per partition.

Then there is obviously something really weird going on with my
installation, whether the filesystem is NTFS or FAT32.

>> I asked my son to check his XP intallation, but he is too busy
>> making money. I have to catch him sitting in front of his machine.

>You should chain him to the machine.

Then he would not make as much money as he does. He is an independent
residential mortgage broker and every time he puts his phone to his
ear, he makes money.



--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

Citizen Bob wrote:
> On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:57:15 GMT, VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>
> Uh oh.

Uh yes--unless you want to argue about one byte!

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314463

<quote>
You cannot create a file larger than (2^32)-1 bytes (this is one byte
less than 4 GB) on a FAT32 partition.
</quote>

Other Microsoft sources say "4 GB minus 2 bytes". Take your pick!

> "...Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

Applies particularly to Microsoft articles! :-)

--
Virg Wall

On 24 Oct 2006 12:07:53 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:

>VWWall wrote:
>> Citizen Bob wrote:
>> > On 24 Oct 2006 01:02:18 -0700, meow2222@care2.com wrote:
>
>> >> FAT32 has some strange issues
>
>> > What is the maximum file size with FAT32?
>
>> 4GB minus two bytes.
>
>FAT32 max partition size is 30G, which is its biggest limitation. NTFS
>is a much more secure and reliable fs as well as being more fully
>featured.

This is generally untrue.

UNLESS you set encryption or permissions, NTFS gains nothing
security wise. Maybe he would, but the security is not
better just because of NTFS.

As for reliability, not really. The vast majority of
problems with FAT32, would effect NTFS as well.


>Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
>they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.

If you have errors, fix the problem.


>50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data. NTFS
>has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen. FAT has no password
>security system, ntfs does, so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any
>user.

Where does a virus tend to put itself? OS partition. Are
you seriously claiming everyone with NTFS on Winxp, has
never had a virus on their OS partition?


>
>Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
>a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
>booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.

I'm not suggesting FAT32 is better than NTFS, but
practically speaking everyone repeats the marketing blurb
you did, too, without really considering the application,
whether it'll matter.

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 05:10:24 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:


>I know, I should reinstall Win2K from scratch. But I refuse to do it
>because 1) I have close to 100 installed applications, many of which I
>do not even recall the customizations. It would take months to
>reinstall all that software to the same configuration I now have; 2) I
>refuse to cave in to the absurd demands of Windows having to be
>reinstalled every 6 months just because MS won't spend the money to
>fix it. Maybe I will install Vista from scratch, but not XP or Win2K.


Again you are being silly.

There is no more reason to install Vista from scratch than
Win2k. There is no reason to install win2k every six
months, but rather what WAS ALREADY TOLD TO YOU.

Do a clean Win2k install. Did anyone suggest "reinstall
every 6 months"? No. You need to focus on what WAS
written, not on wild presumptions.

So you have a lot of apps installed? So what? Think
nobody else does? All you have to do is make a clean
installation, export the appropriate registry keys and copy
over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
menu. Will it work 100% of the time? No, there will be a
few things that need more attention, but since nobody was
suggesting you just delete your entire existing
installation, it's not as though this information is
suddenly gone and can't be referred to, to get any rogue
apps working.

Something else you can do is compare the clean
installation's system and driver files to your old one- the
apps should not need special drivers in most cases, save for
a few dealing with specific hardware.

Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>> However, even with FAT 32, I still get two device drivers per partition

>> THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.

> Then why am I seeing two entries per partition n NT Defrag
> and Perfect Disk, but not My computer or Disk Management?

They are getting confused by something. It isnt currently clear by what.

>>> in NT Defrag and Perfect Disk. If you load NT Defrag,
>>> how many devices do you see per partition?

>> Cant readily try that, I run XP on everything.

> I meant the degragger for XP.

>> With the Disk Defragmenter in XP I have just one entry per partition.

> Then there is obviously something really weird going on with
> my installation, whether the filesystem is NTFS or FAT32.

Yes, but since you that showed up after the stupid raid
system was installed, its almost certainly been done by that.

>>> I asked my son to check his XP intallation, but he is too busy
>>> making money. I have to catch him sitting in front of his machine.

>> You should chain him to the machine.

> Then he would not make as much money as he does.

True. There are always some downsides.

> He is an independent residential mortgage broker and
> every time he puts his phone to his ear, he makes money.

Just get him a cordless phone so he can still do that even when chained to the PC.

meow2222@care2.com wrote
> VWWall wrote
>> Citizen Bob wrote
>>> meow2222@care2.com wrote

>>>> FAT32 has some strange issues

>>> What is the maximum file size with FAT32?

>> 4GB minus two bytes.

> FAT32 max partition size is 30G,

Nope. XP wont create one bigger than that but it
works fine if you use something else to create it.

> which is its biggest limitation.

Nope, the biggest limitation is actually the 4G file size limit.

> NTFS is a much more secure and reliable fs

Thats arguable when NT/2K/XP claims that its unformatted
when its still usable in something else like knoppix etc.

> as well as being more fully featured.

Yes, lots more secure and much more flexible with encryption etc.

> Eg FAT has 2 copies of the FAT, and when an error ocurs, as
> they do, scandisk just picks one at random and overwrites the other.

It isnt done at random.

> 50% of the time tis works... and 50% of the time you lose data.

Its much more complicated than that.

> NTFS has 3 copies, so this problem doesnt happen.

Nice theory. Pity about the reality that NT/2K/XP can just decide
that the partition is unformatted when other stuff can read it fine.

> FAT has no password security system, ntfs does,
> so fat is 100% accessible to viri and any user.

> Maybe you dont need the features of ntfs and fat32's limitations arent
> a problem. FAT32 does give more OS options than ntfs, handy if dual
> booting, running dos apps, or swapping discs with winDOS systems.

And much more viable if you want to be able to
write to that partition from both Win and Linux etc.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:47:37 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>They are getting confused by something. It isnt currently clear by what.

If I change the drive letter, it takes effect immediately for one of
the device drivers (the one with the label) but not the other. I have
to reboot to get it to take effect on the other one.

There is something going on with what Windows calls a "generic
device". I see it in the Install/Remove Hardware utility. Sometimes
when I add a partition in Disk Management, it attempts to assign the
next drive letter in the alphabetic sequence, but can't because "that
letter is already in use" or somesuch. But there is no such device to
be found. If I then remove the generic device with the Add/Remove
Hardware, it frees up the hidden letter and I can use it.

Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices. It has
an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used. If I clear
out that key, it becomes available.

>Yes, but since you that showed up after the stupid raid
>system was installed, its almost certainly been done by that.

When I built this machine and did an IPU to install Win2K, I ran it
very briefly without that RAID contraption. But I did not use the
defragger so I do not know if there were two device drivers per
partition. I then installed the RAID unit and kept it for about 6
months. The corrupt NTFS partition problem showed up immediately.

I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was eager to
work with me to find the source of the problem. But after a short
period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered that there was
something radically wrong with her product. I contacted my vendor and
he contacted the US importer and they decided that the product was not
functioning properly, so I was given a full cash refund. That's when I
began making clones for backup.

>> He is an independent residential mortgage broker and
>> every time he puts his phone to his ear, he makes money.

>Just get him a cordless phone so he can still do that even when chained to the PC.

He has a cordless phone, and it is constantly in use.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:05:05 GMT, VWWall <vwall@DEADearthlink.net>
wrote:

>>> 4GB minus two bytes.

>> Uh oh.

>Uh yes

When I learned this, I immediately converted back to NTFS. It will
take a couple days to see if swapping back and forth has cured the
problem, as Rod suggested it might. I sure as Hell hope so.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:38:05 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>I'm not suggesting FAT32 is better than NTFS, but
>practically speaking everyone repeats the marketing blurb
>you did, too, without really considering the application,
>whether it'll matter.

The 4GB limitation on file size is a killer for me. I do a lot of
video work and a 4GB file is not unheard of.



--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:45:03 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

> All you have to do is make a clean installation,

Easy enough

>export the appropriate registry keys

How do you propose I do that? I have nearly 100 installed apps. Do you
expect me to fish thru the Registry looking for every possible
reference to them, including the classes, etc?

>and copy over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>menu.

Easy enough. You also want to copy the profiles.

>Will it work 100% of the time? No, there will be a
>few things that need more attention, but since nobody was
>suggesting you just delete your entire existing
>installation, it's not as though this information is
>suddenly gone and can't be referred to, to get any rogue
>apps working.

I can deal with a small number of apps that don't work. In fact there
were two such apps that did not survive the NTFS -> FAT32 transition
or the FAT32 -> NTFS transition back. I simply uninstalled and
reinstalled.

>Something else you can do is compare the clean
>installation's system and driver files to your old one- the
>apps should not need special drivers in most cases, save for
>a few dealing with specific hardware.

How do you propose I do that?

You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious. But I have serious
reservations about just how easy it is. But I am willing to listen to
any constructive comments. If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 07:52:12 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Nope, the biggest limitation is actually the 4G file size limit.

That is why I just returned to the NTFS fs. However based on your
comment that the problem might go away if I converted the FAT32 fs I
made the other day to an NTFS fs, I went that route. I should know in
a couple days if the corruption problem has gone away.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> They are getting confused by something. It isnt currently clear by what.

> If I change the drive letter, it takes effect immediately for one
> of the device drivers (the one with the label) but not the other.

THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.

> I have to reboot to get it to take effect on the other one.

> There is something going on with what Windows calls a "generic
> device". I see it in the Install/Remove Hardware utility. Sometimes
> when I add a partition in Disk Management, it attempts to assign the
> next drive letter in the alphabetic sequence, but can't because "that
> letter is already in use" or somesuch.

Thats mangled completely too. It should be able to work out what is free.

> But there is no such device to be found. If I then remove the generic device
> with the Add/Remove Hardware, it frees up the hidden letter and I can use it.

You've stuffed something up, presumably in the process of
using that abortion of a RAID, but it could just as easily have
been you use of whatever it was you used to clone the drive too.

> Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices.
> It has an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used.
> If I clear out that key, it becomes available.

Presumably something else keeps putting it back.

>> Yes, but since you that showed up after the stupid raid
>> system was installed, its almost certainly been done by that.

> When I built this machine and did an IPU to install Win2K, I ran it
> very briefly without that RAID contraption. But I did not use the
> defragger so I do not know if there were two device drivers per
> partition. I then installed the RAID unit and kept it for about 6
> months. The corrupt NTFS partition problem showed up immediately.

> I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was
> eager to work with me to find the source of the problem. But
> after a short period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered
> that there was something radically wrong with her product.

Or she decided that you were too bone headed to bother with.

Kony clearly has.

> I contacted my vendor and he contacted the US importer and they
> decided that the product was not functioning properly, so I was given
> a full cash refund. That's when I began making clones for backup.

>>> He is an independent residential mortgage broker and
>>> every time he puts his phone to his ear, he makes money.

>> Just get him a cordless phone so he can
>> still do that even when chained to the PC.

> He has a cordless phone, and it is constantly in use.

A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:49:00 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.

Here's the facts as I see them.

1) If I open a defragger (NT Defrag or Perfect Disk), I see two
entries per partition. Both have a drive letter and one has the volume
label, whereas the other is blank after the drive letter.

2) This does not show up in Disk Management. However there are hidden
devices sometimes because when I format a partition, it won't let me
assign the drive letters for the hidden devices.

3) In DiskPerfect I can expose the GUID for the device drivers, and
they are different for the two entries per partition.

4) Every time I change the disk signature (using Win98SE fdisk /mbr) I
get a message that I have to reboot because Windows has detected a new
device.

>You've stuffed something up, presumably in the process of
>using that abortion of a RAID, but it could just as easily have
>been you use of whatever it was you used to clone the drive too.

The problem was present before I used clones. That problem (corrupt
NTFS partitions) was the reason I got rid of the RAID contraption.

>> Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices.
>> It has an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used.
>> If I clear out that key, it becomes available.

>Presumably something else keeps putting it back.

If I could find what it is, I might be able to fix this problem.

One poster suggested that I use RegMon (a Registry monitor that
displays everything that goes on in the Registry) to track down the
problem. The trouble with that is there would be literally thousands
of records to sort thru.

>> I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was
>> eager to work with me to find the source of the problem. But
>> after a short period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered
>> that there was something radically wrong with her product.

>Or she decided that you were too bone headed to bother with.

Why would you say that? If you knew me, you would know I am the
complete opposite. Are you sure you are not projecting.

>Kony clearly has.

Kony doesn't appreciate what I am up against. Anyway, there may be a
misunderstanding about what he means by a "fresh install". I took it
to mean that I have to reinstall all my applications, which is clearly
a nightmare. Now he tells me in his last post that there is a way to
do a fresh install without having to reinstall everything - and it is
not an IPU.

>A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.

That is not a nice thing to say about my son.


--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 06:35:34 GMT, spam@uce.gov (Citizen Bob)
wrote:

>On Tue, 24 Oct 2006 17:45:03 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> All you have to do is make a clean installation,
>
>Easy enough
>
>>export the appropriate registry keys
>
>How do you propose I do that? I have nearly 100 installed apps. Do you
>expect me to fish thru the Registry looking for every possible
>reference to them, including the classes, etc?

How much time have you spent so far on this drive
corruption? Hours, maybe longer considering all the time to
restore files and make more frequent backups least lose
data.

Exporting a few registry keys is mere minutes work. So what
if you have to export the classes keys and merge those too?
Remember, you are making a SECOND OS installation, it's not
like you lose anything if you accidentally cause same
problem on the new installation, and if done incrementally
could even help to narrow down what's causing it.



>
>>and copy over the installation folders and shortcuts for the start
>>menu.
>
>Easy enough. You also want to copy the profiles.

Ok, and?



>>Something else you can do is compare the clean
>>installation's system and driver files to your old one- the
>>apps should not need special drivers in most cases, save for
>>a few dealing with specific hardware.
>
>How do you propose I do that?

They're files. You can take two folders and compare what's
inside, particularly in smaller folders like
C:\WINNT\system32\drivers



>
>You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious.

You won't know till you try it, will you?

>But I have serious
>reservations about just how easy it is.

How can you when you only argue against it?

>But I am willing to listen to
>any constructive comments.

>If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
>merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.

Ok, so have you started? My suggestion is the installation
on another partition or drive, done clean. Get that 100%
working, including drivers, then make a backup of it as you
will do at certain intervals so if something goes awry you
can just revert back without losing the entire installation.

I'm not claiming the whole process will be done in an hour
or two, but considering how long your present installation
has been used, a new one might last you till the end of
time...

On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:25:23 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:

>Exporting a few registry keys is mere minutes work.

What are those "few registry keys"?

>So what if you have to export the classes keys and merge those too?

Although I have used Regedit, I have no idea how to begin doing what
you are proposing.

>>You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious.

>You won't know till you try it, will you?

If you give me the instructions I am willing to give it a try.

>>But I have serious
>>reservations about just how easy it is.
>
>How can you when you only argue against it?

I told you that I misunderstood what you were proposing all along. I
thought when you used the term "clean install" that I would have to
install all my applications again. That's what I was arguing against.

If you give me the instructions (or point me to a website that has
them) for doing the Registry export, I am willing to have a go at it,
because I won't have to actually reinstall anything.

>>If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
>>merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.

>Ok, so have you started? My suggestion is the installation
>on another partition or drive, done clean. Get that 100%
>working, including drivers, then make a backup of it as you
>will do at certain intervals so if something goes awry you
>can just revert back without losing the entire installation.

I assume by that you mean create a new active partition of a new
installation of Win2K. That I can do and I can dedicate a complete
disk drive to it. Should I put SP4 on too?

I will do that and report back for the next step. I am trusting you
that the Registry exports will be straightforward, and not require me
to seek out the references to 100 different apps many of which have
different names in the Registry for the same app.



--

"Nothing in the world can take the place of perseverence. Talent
will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful men with talent.
Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education
will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and
determination alone are omnipotent."
--Calvin Coolidge

Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>> THERE ARE NO SEPARATE DEVICE DRIVERS.

> Here's the facts as I see them.

> 1) If I open a defragger (NT Defrag or Perfect Disk), I see two
> entries per partition. Both have a drive letter and one has the
> volume label, whereas the other is blank after the drive letter.

Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.

> 2) This does not show up in Disk Management. However there
> are hidden devices sometimes because when I format a partition,
> it won't let me assign the drive letters for the hidden devices.

Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.

> 3) In DiskPerfect I can expose the GUID for the device drivers,

Those arent separate device DRIVERS either, they are just separated DEVICES.

> and they are different for the two entries per partition.

Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.

> 4) Every time I change the disk signature (using Win98SE fdisk /mbr) I get
> a message that I have to reboot because Windows has detected a new device.

Says nothing useful about whether there are
separate device drivers for those two entrys.

>> You've stuffed something up, presumably in the process of
>> using that abortion of a RAID, but it could just as easily have
>> been you use of whatever it was you used to clone the drive too.

> The problem was present before I used clones.

I didnt meant the clones for backup, I meant the cloning you did in
the process of setting that system up with that abortion of a RAID.
Using the hard drive manufacturer's ute from memory.

> That problem (corrupt NTFS partitions) was
> the reason I got rid of the RAID contraption.

The corruption may well be an entirely separate issue to the
extra entry for each partition since changing to FAT32 fixed
the corruption but not the extra entry for each partition.

>>> Also, in the Registry there is key that shows Mounted Devices.
>>> It has an entry for the hidden drive letter that can't be used.
>>> If I clear out that key, it becomes available.

>> Presumably something else keeps putting it back.

> If I could find what it is, I might be able to fix this problem.

> One poster suggested that I use RegMon (a Registry monitor that
> displays everything that goes on in the Registry) to track down the
> problem. The trouble with that is there would be literally thousands
> of records to sort thru.

Thats what the search function is for.

>>> I contacted the Product Line Manager in Taiwan and she was
>>> eager to work with me to find the source of the problem. But
>>> after a short period she turned cold - I suspect she discovered
>>> that there was something radically wrong with her product.

>> Or she decided that you were too bone headed to bother with.

> Why would you say that?

Because of the evidence I have seen of your bone headedness.

> If you knew me, you would know I am the complete opposite.

Pity about the evidence of your boneheadedness in your posts.

An absolutely classic example of that is that obsessive claim
that you have separate device drivers for those extra entrys
for each partition when there are no such separate device drivers.

> Are you sure you are not projecting.

Completely sure.

>> Kony clearly has.

> Kony doesn't appreciate what I am up against.

Yes he does.

> Anyway, there may be a misunderstanding about what he
> means by a "fresh install". I took it to mean that I have to
> reinstall all my applications, which is clearly a nightmare.

And we both kept rubbing your nose in the fact that that isnt necessary.

> Now he tells me in his last post that there is a way to do a fresh
> install without having to reinstall everything - and it is not an IPU.

And I told you that well before that, using the files and settings transfer wizard.

>> A retrospective abortion may well be the only solution.

> That is not a nice thing to say about my son.

That was a joke, Joyce.

I'd cut to the chase and move to XP.

Install that on one of your spare drives, apply SP2 and the online updates.
Install all those apps, dont worry about the settings/config stuff for those.

Use the files and settings transfer wizard in XP to get the settings
and config stuff and files from the 2K install you are currently using.

See how you like that XP install, particularly that the wizard has got
all the settings etc across fine. If they are mostly fine and it just hasnt
got the settings for a few apps across, do those manually, if necessary
repeatedly rebooting between 2K and XP to check the original settings etc.

Once its working fine, break out the champagne and get on with your 'life'


Citizen Bob <spam@uce.gov> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 12:25:23 -0400, kony <spam@spam.com> wrote:
>
>> Exporting a few registry keys is mere minutes work.
>
> What are those "few registry keys"?
>
>> So what if you have to export the classes keys and merge those too?
>
> Although I have used Regedit, I have no idea how to begin doing what
> you are proposing.
>
>>> You make it sound so easy, albeit tedious.
>
>> You won't know till you try it, will you?
>
> If you give me the instructions I am willing to give it a try.
>
>>> But I have serious
>>> reservations about just how easy it is.
>>
>> How can you when you only argue against it?
>
> I told you that I misunderstood what you were proposing all along. I
> thought when you used the term "clean install" that I would have to
> install all my applications again. That's what I was arguing against.
>
> If you give me the instructions (or point me to a website that has
> them) for doing the Registry export, I am willing to have a go at it,
> because I won't have to actually reinstall anything.
>
>>> If I can pull off a clean reinstall by
>>> merely doing the things you state above, then let's get started.
>
>> Ok, so have you started? My suggestion is the installation
>> on another partition or drive, done clean. Get that 100%
>> working, including drivers, then make a backup of it as you
>> will do at certain intervals so if something goes awry you
>> can just revert back without losing the entire installation.
>
> I assume by that you mean create a new active partition of a new
> installation of Win2K. That I can do and I can dedicate a complete
> disk drive to it. Should I put SP4 on too?
>
> I will do that and report back for the next step. I am trusting you
> that the Registry exports will be straightforward, and not re